Can we trust our Bibles?
How the Bible came to us
I recently read about five alleged myths and shortcomings of the Bible: the creation story, the morality of the Jews destroying the Canaanites, Noah’s flood, the virgin birth and inconsistencies between different parts of the Bible. So can we trust our Bibles or are they the unreliable product of a more primitive era? To answer this question we will look at how the Bible came to us.
The word Bible comes from biblion, the Greek word for book and the word Scripture comes from scriptura, the Latin word for something written. The Bible is a collection of 66 books from more than 40 authors. It has two main parts, the Old Testament (OT), written before Christ and the New Testament (NT), written after Christ. They were both written in the everyday language of their time. The OT was written in Hebrew, except for portions in Aramaic after the Jewish exile in Babylon, while the New Testament was written in Greek.
Original text
Paul said that the OT was “the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2). This also applies to the NT as Peter equates Paul’s letters with Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). So how did the words of God get to be written on earth? Well, the apostle John reported, “On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: …’” (Rev. 1:10-11NIV). In this case John was given a vision and he was to write down what he saw. In Jeremiah’s case, he dictated God-given words to his secretary Baruch (Jer. 36:1-4).
In Hebrews we learn, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). This means that in the OT God communicated to people via the prophets and in the NT He communicated via Jesus and the apostles, who recorded the life of Jesus and the early church.
Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Peter wrote, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable … Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things (own mind). For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:19-21). Clearly the Bible message came from God via the prophets and apostles. The Holy Spirit influenced them like a wind moves a sailing boat: see Acts 27:15 where the same word is used. So the Holy Spirit helped the authors write the words. But it wasn’t just dictated mechanically, because each author used their own style.
So God created the books of the Bible via human authors. It’s God’s words (in the original text). That’s why it is also referred to as God’s Word. Each word of the entire Bible was “God-breathed” as originally written. This means it was recorded accurately without error. So it’s trustworthy and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
Paul communicated “things God has revealed to us by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10), “not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13). So the words used by the apostles were especially chosen by the Holy Spirit. Paul and the other writers “had the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). This passage is about new truths revealed in the NT, not about heaven.
What about the Apocrypha which is comprised of 13 Jewish writings from the period between the OT and the NT (430 BC to 50 AD) that are included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles? The word Apocrypha comes from a Greek word meaning hidden. However:
- They were never accepted by the Jews as part of their God-given Scriptures
- None are quoted or referred to in the NT or accepted by Jesus and the apostles as God-given Scripture
- None were written by the OT prophets
- They were only recognised by Roman Catholics as part of their Scriptures in the 1540s (1,500 years after they were written)
So the Apocrypha are Jewish religious books written between the times of the OT and the NT, but they are not God-breathed Scripture.
By 400 BC the OT was complete and written on scrolls and by 100 AD the NT was complete and written on scrolls. However, because scrolls don’t last for thousands of years, we don’t have any of the original Biblical texts today. Does this mean our Bibles are unreliable? No! Many copies have been made and early manuscripts have been preserved.
Early manuscripts
Photocopiers have been used since 1959 and the printing press since the 1450s. Gutenberg printed the first Bible in 1456. Copies of the books of the Bible were handwritten before the printing press. A handwritten copy is called a manuscript, which comes from the Latin words manu (hand) and scriptum (written). An amazing number of Bible manuscripts have been preserved for us to examine today. These comprise ancient fragments, scrolls and books.
The characteristics of these documents changed over the centuries between when they were first composed and the advent of the printing press. The media they were written on changed from stones (like the Ten Commandments), to clay tablets (Moses), to papyrus (paper made from a reed plant that grew along the Nile River – that’s where our word paper comes from), to parchment (also called vellum; made from animal skins), and to paper. Paper as we know it was invented in China, but wasn’t used in Europe until the 1200s. Books replaced scrolls in about the second century AD. In about the eleventh century AD, the Greek text changed from modified capitals to lower case. In about the fifth century AD, the quill replaced the reed as the “pen” used by copyists. Scholars examine these characteristics when dating manuscripts.
Old Testament manuscripts
The OT was written between 1500 BC and 400 BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) were the most important archaeological discovery in the last century. They were found in clay jays in caves near the north-western shore of the Dead Sea. Scholars believe that the DSS were hidden about 70 AD when Roman legions invaded Israel.
Before this time, the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the whole OT was Codex Leningradensis (1008 AD). Codex means book. In the DSS there was a copy of Isaiah dated 150 BC, which was about 550 years after the original text was written. The Hebrew text of this copy was virtually the same as the copy made over 1,000 years later. So the Jewish scribes did a good job! They were diligent and developed many practices to protect copies of their scriptures from error. For example, the Masoretes numbered the letters, words, and paragraphs of each book and the middle paragraph, middle word and middle letter had to correspond to those of the original document. Earlier Jewish scribes were just as meticulous in their transcription. After all, they were instructed not to add to or take away from the word of God (Dt. 4:2; Prov. 30:6).
Most of the DSS predate the time of Christ (they were written 150 BC to 70 AD). Parts of all the books of the Old Testament were found except Esther. They closely follow the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible (the tanakh), copied by a group of Jews about the 10th century AD, but there are a few exceptions. For example, Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but “N” verse is missing in the Masoretic Text and King James Bible.
Between the third century BC and 130 BC, the OT was translated into Greek and this version of the OT is known as the Septuagint. Fragments of Septuagint manuscripts date from the first and second centuries BC. Relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century AD and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest existing complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the 10th century.
New Testament manuscripts
The NT was written between 50 AD and 100 AD. The oldest NT manuscript is a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, which is dated about 125 AD about 30 years after the book was first written! The earliest manuscripts of each book in the NT are usually papyrus fragments which are dated from 125 AD (for John) to 350 AD for 1&2 Timothy and 3 John, with a median date of 200 AD.
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Bible written about 350 AD, contains the earliest complete copy of the New Testament. It was discovered at a monastery on Mount Sinai in the 1850s. The hand-written text is in Greek. On the other hand, the earliest manuscripts of the works of the Jewish historian Josephus in their original language are dated 900-1000 AD, at least 800 years after they were written.
As there are earlier, better and more manuscripts of Scripture, the manuscript evidence of the Bible is superior to that for any other ancient book. However, none of these Biblical manuscripts is perfectly accurate, they all contain copy errors. Does this mean our Bibles are unreliable? No! Scholars have reconstructed the original text.
Reconstructed text
The study of biblical manuscripts is important because handwritten copies of books usually contain errors. Textural scholars reconstruct the original text from the manuscripts available. Generally earlier versions are closer to the original as they have fewer copy errors.
Scholars have grouped the NT manuscripts into families: Alexandrian (200s-400s AD), Caesarean (200s AD onwards), Western (300s-500s AD) and Byzantine (500s onwards). There have been three major attempts to reconstruct the original New Testament text from ancient Greek manuscripts:
The Received Text (“Textus Receptus” in Latin) was based on some Byzantine (eastern portion of the Roman Empire) manuscripts (dated from 1000 AD). It was first published in 1516. This text lacks the input of many early Biblical manuscripts which have been discovered since this time.
The Eclectic Text (selected from the best of a variety of sources) was based on an analysis of all the manuscripts, with a preference for the earliest ones (mainly Alexandrian, Caesarean and Western manuscripts). It was first published in the 1880s. This text tends to be shorter than the others.
The Majority Text was based on the majority of existing Greek manuscripts and first published in the 1982. As fewer ancient texts have survived and the Byzantine church was quite wealthy and produced many manuscripts, the Majority Text is largely based on the Byzantine family of manuscripts (dated the 9th to the 13th centuries AD) and has some similarities to the Received Text. However, no major Bible translations are based on the Majority Text.
The differences between the reconstructed New Testament texts mentioned above are mainly technical and not doctrinal. They don’t affect any Christian doctrine because the Bible is a robust document. It has a great deal of redundancy and repetition with multiple accounts of important events. For example, there two accounts of Israel’s history (Samuel & Kings; Chronicles), three genealogies from Adam to Abraham (Genesis 5&11; 1 Chronicles; Luke 3) and four accounts of the life of Jesus (the gospels). All major doctrines are taught in several places in the Bible. They don’t rely on a single verse.
So scholars have reconstructed the original Biblical texts. However, as these reconstructed original texts are in Hebrew and Greek, which most of us can’t read, does that mean that our Bibles, which are not in Hebrew and Greek are unreliable? No! These languages have been translated accurately.
Accurate translation
Translators transfer the message from a source language to a receptor language. These Biblical texts have been translated into most of the languages in the world. In fact, the Bible has been translated and retranslated more than any other book in history. New translations are needed from time to time because all languages are constantly changing.
Some ancient translations are:
• The Septuagint – a Greek translation of the OT dated about 200 BC, which was quoted by Christ and the apostles. This shows that God approves of translations. Jesus viewed this translation of the Old Testament as reliable and trustworthy (Mt. 5:17-18; Jn. 10:35).
• The Vulgate – a Latin translation of the Bible dated about 400 AD, which was used for over 1,000 years including the Middle Ages.
If you look at an Interlinear Bible you will realise that a word-for-word translation is impossible. This is because each language has a different vocabulary (we may need more than one word to describe a word in another language or vice-versa) and a different grammar (or sentence structure). Also, languages are flexible and there is often more than one way to correctly translate a text. The same information can be communicated in different ways.
What’s the difference between different translations of the Bible?
Source text
Two types of reconstructed source have mainly been used:
- Received Text – This was used by the 1611 KJV and has been maintained by subsequent editions of the KJV and for the NKJV.
- Eclectic Text – This is used by most other translations of the Bible where some verses are omitted because it is believed that they were added by copyists.
Readability
Some translations try to follow the pattern of the source language (but are not as readable), others follow the pattern of the receptor language (but are not as close literally). For example:
- Most literal includes: NASB (11), KJV (12), NKJV (9) and ESV (9)
- Most readable includes: CEV (4), NLT (6)
- Intermediate: NIV (8), HCSB (8)
The number is the grade level required to read the text. Note: interlinear Bibles are most literal, but they are not readable at all, and The Message is a paraphrase not a translation. Different translations have different purposes, which are indicated in the front of the Bible. They usually have a particular readership in mind. Most of the translations are trustworthy. Rarely does a doctrinal matter hinge on the translation of the text.
Lessons for us
We can be thankful for the Bible’s preservation over thousands of years.
Our Bibles are very close to the original because early manuscripts have been preserved, scholars have reconstructed the original text and languages have been translated accurately. So we can trust our Bibles.
Paul told Timothy, “from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Each of our Bibles contains all we need to know about salvation, spiritual growth and Christian living, by making us “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and thoroughly equipping us for every good work.
Which is the best Bible? The one you read! Read it regularly and memorise key verses.
Written, March 2012
Also see: Is the New Testament reliable?
Mind the gap
Do we have the right Bible?
Can Greek be translated into English?
George's Journal 
But I was wondering what about the parts that say that God ordained for the Israelites to slaughter so many people, yes I understand that was God’s judgement on a wicked people, but that doesn’t explain slaughtering innocent children, in some cases of wiping out a people, also sometimes they spared virgins and kids but these women were forced into marriages with the Israelites, it seems inconsistent with a God who is against abortion and offering forgiveness to sinners.
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 7:43 am
Also it seems that slavery was condoned and rape. I ask these hard questions for myself as well as unbelivers who use this to justify their hatred of God and the bible, and yes I can’t explain these inconsistencies for my self so I’m seeking another opinion, thank you.
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 7:46 am
Thanks for the hard questions! Please see the following links to my responses.
Why all the killing in the Old Testament? Also, the Israelite occupation of Canaan was a unique historical event.
Does the Bible condone slavery? Old Testament
Does the New Testament condone slavery?
Does the Bible condone rape? Like history books & the news media, the Bible doesn’t approve all it reports. Also, much of the Bible is descriptive & not prescriptive.
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 10:09 am
Thank for u for opening our eyes about the Bible may God of heaven bless u in Jesus name.
LikeLike
October 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm
The NIV Bible has removed many Scriptures, both key Scriptures and more obscure Scriptures. The King James Version and direct derivatives are the most accurate.
LikeLike
April 28, 2015 at 1:34 am
Some unbelievers and even Christians bring up different instances in the Bible where there were events that were unpleasant but every other ancient nation and society performed these exact same acts on their own people and others and it is never mentioned. Nowhere in the written Bible is there any Scripture where it says that rape is condoned. In Leviticus, God openly demanded restitution for raped women. The “slaves” of the Bible were more or less indentured but well treated servants and cannot be compared to the despicable slavery in recent history. Arranged marriages are still prevalent in different cultures to this day. Yes the murder of innocents and raping women and like heinous things are absolutely horrible but there are innocent babies that are able to be aborted everyday, babies in third world countries are starving to death and there is all too much rampant child physical and sexual abuse in this country and elsewhere. Sex trafficking is prevalent and growing throughout the world and women are routinely objectified and dehumanized in popular culture, ISIS is advancing throughout the Middle East with virtually nothing being done to stop them, there seems to be incessant violence against African-American men in our nation, and the world watches Israel stand alone to defend themselves against their surrounding enemies that attack them everyday while some Christian organizations whose members have been eternally saved by the Jewish Messiah boycott and ostracize Israel for defending their and their generations right to exist but say “Never Again” regarding the Holocaust. There are millions of innocent people being harmed everyday but most people aren’t actively doing anything to speak out against it or stop it.
LikeLike
April 28, 2015 at 2:15 am
We live in a fallen world that is hopelessly and wholly lost without the Lord. Man cannot question God, or attempt to call on God to explain His High and Unfathomable Ways to us. We need to understand that the Lord’s Ways are right, best, and just. We need to look past the temporal which can be hurtful and harmful and know that God will work out everything to good for those that love Him and He has His reasons for why He allows things but we know that God is Loving and Just and His Ways are Just and Perfect according to His standards and not our finite perceptions and conclusions.
LikeLike
April 28, 2015 at 3:05 am
Question: Please Trace Mark chapter 8 verse 31 from papyrus 45 back to Jesus. In other words, please prove to me that Jesus opened his mouth and said Mark 8:31
Answer
The question concerns the accuracy of a statement made in the New Testament book of Mark. The verse reports Jesus telling the disciples, “He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that He must be killed and after three days rise again” (NIV).
The accuracy of an historical account depends on the magnitude of the time period between the alleged event and the original manuscript (Autograph) and between the autograph and the date the oldest copy available to us was written.
The original autograph was written by John Mark soon after the events they describe. The book of Mark was written about AD 60, which is about 30 years after Christ’s ministry. So it was written during the same generation, which enabled it to be verified by eyewitnesses. As Mark was a colleague of Peter, it is assumed that this information was provided by Peter (1 Pt. 5:13). The rest of the disciples were still alive at this time and they could have ensured it was corrected if the statement wasn’t accurate. As John Mark lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), he may have been an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry that took place in Jerusalem.
This information was also reported by Matthew and Luke (Mt. 16:21; Lk. 9:22). Matthew was a disciple while Luke was a historian who consulted eyewitnesses (Lk. 1:1-4). Furthermore, Jesus didn’t only make this statement once, but three times (Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34).
In this verse Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man”, which wasn’t common amongst early Christians who used the words “Christ”, “Lord” and “Son of God” instead. So it seems that the term “Son of Man” was indeed used by Jesus and not invented by another person.
Papyrus 45 is a document that was probably created around 250 in Egypt which contains portions of the New Testament including Mark 4-9 and 11-12. The manuscript is heavily damaged and fragmented. The papyrus was bound in a codex, which may have consisted of 220 pages, however only 30 survive. The time period of about 200 years between the autograph and Papyrus 45 is shorter than that for other ancient extra-biblical manuscripts, which are accepted as reliable by textural scholars.
It is a reliable history? We will look at it internally and externally. Internally it claims to be “the good news about Jesus the Messiah. The Son of God” (Mk. 1:1). At the beginning of the book it declares that its theme is the good news that God has provided salvation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It then gives an historical account of Christ’s ministry. This comes from the eyewitness account of Simon Peter. It’s written like history. Externally, the book matches what is known about the history of that time. For example, in 1961 an inscription was found at Caesarea Maritima which is part of dedication of a temple to Tiberius Caesar which says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea”. Tiberias ruled the Roman Empire from 14 BC to AD 37.
Furthermore, the book of Mark is consistent with the other biographies of Jesus written by Matthew and Luke in the same time period, and John who wrote about AD 85.
So there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus did indeed speak the words reported in Mark 8:31.
LikeLike
May 17, 2015 at 6:34 am
Further questions and answers on the book of Mark:
Q1. I believe that Jesus did NOT say Mark 8:31 because the chain of transmission from Jesus’ mouth to the oldest existing copy is broken.
A1. I have already answered this question. Have you read the answer? Have you read the book of Mark to see if it looks like a historical account? As this chain of transmission is missing for most ancient documents, do you believe any of them?
Q2. The gospel of Mark does NOT claim to be written by Mark or by an eyewitness and the title was added later.
A2. Although the author and title aren’t mentioned in the text of the gospel of Mark, there is no reason to doubt that it was written by John Mark from the eyewitness account of Simon Peter. This information came from Christians in the early church who lived much closer to the time it was written than us. Furthermore, the text is consistent with this belief – it looks like a historical account.
Q3. Some scholars say that there are geographical errors in the gospel according to Mark.
A3. What are these alleged errors? Just because a scholar makes an allegation, doesn’t mean it is true.
Q4. The originals are lost so we do not know what was there in the original gospels.
A4. As this is true for all ancient documents, do you believe any of them?
Q5. I don’t trust Papias’ testimony.
A5. Papias of Hierapolis was a Christian author who lived about AD 70-163. The reliability of the book of Mark doesn’t depend on the writings of a single witness such as Papias.
LikeLike
May 22, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Pingback: mid-week apologetics booster (9-12-2019) – 1 Peter 4:12-16
The thing that is most overlooked though in regards to translating the bible, is the English language itself. We have a lot to be grateful for to have all this overwhelming textual support, however the English language is still insufficient to fully translate the original languages. Take Greek for example the largest language in the world at 5 million words. Against English, which only maybe could reach 1 million words, Greek can explain things with so much more precision and description. Take the English word for love. We use it for EVERYTHING. Greek has at least 4 different ways to use love. So even though we can trust the sources where we get English translations from, English versions, ANY English version of the bible still has misinterpretation issues, some at costly misconceptions we doctrinize and hence why we have such divisions in churches. Not really because the word is wrong but because men interpret it wrongly.
LikeLike
October 20, 2019 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for the comment Jordan. This reply is based on comments from Dr Theron Young of the Australian College of Christian Studies.
You say, “We have a lot to be grateful for to have all this overwhelming textual support, however the English language is still insufficient to fully translate the original languages”. The English language is as good or as poor as most any other language to translate the Bible. Something is always gained and lost in the translation process. However, we should not despair that important doctrines are lost in translation. The core message of the Bible is recorded in multiple versions and we can compare Scripture with Scripture to get a good representation of God’s Word in ANY language used for translation.
You say, “Take Greek for example the largest language in the world at 5 million words. Against English, which only maybe could reach 1 million words, Greek can explain things with so much more precision and description”. I would like to know where these statistics come from. The 2nd Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1989, contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as sub-entries. That is a far cry from the figure of 1 million. In 1990, the Guinness Book of Records ranked the Greek language as the richest in the world with 5 million words. But I am suspicious of that figure. Even if it is true, it might not be relevant. The Strong’s numbers for the Bible give about 8,000 words for Hebrew-Aramaic and 8,000 for Greek. So, theoretically, you would need only 15-20 thousand words in English to translate the Bible into English, or any other language. How does one prove that Greek words are more precise than English words? That is a completely different question that has nothing to do with the number of words existing in a language.
You say, “Take the English word for love. We use it for EVERYTHING. Greek has at least 4 different ways to use love.” Look in a thesaurus for the word “love” and you will note that it has dozens of synonyms – words meaning “love”. So what is the point of mentioning that Greek has four words meaning love? I suspect that Greek has more than four words for “love.” Note that the Greek word “eros” does not appear in the New Testament. So we need to translate only 3 or 2 Greek words. But also, there are figures of speech with that meaning. Translation very frequently does not involve an equation of ONE Greek word for ONE English word.
You also say, “So even though we can trust the sources where we get English translations from, English versions, ANY English version of the bible still has misinterpretation issues, some at costly misconceptions we doctrinize and hence why we have such divisions in churches. Not really because the word is wrong but because men interpret it wrongly.” Mistranslation or misinterpretation, ultimately, is not the cause of most divisions in the churches. We should note that the Corinthian believers had the teachings in the same language as that of the apostolic writers. And still they had divisions and needed Paul’s rebuke for that. I believe that even if we all could read the original languages of the Bible and interpret them correctly, we would still see divisions among the churches. We need to recognize that we can agree to disagree on non-essential issues and that even in disagreement, we are commanded to love one another.
We certainly can trust our Bible translations – for the most part. There are hardly any Bible translations that actively promote heresy. The only one that comes to mind is not really a translation – the Jehovah’s Witness New World “Translation.” But for other versions, though we might challenge some renderings here and there, for the most part they do a reasonable job of interpretation and translation. After all, God created the different languages as punishment for the pride of humanity (Gen. 11:9). At this time, humanity was divided into different language groups (Gen. 11:5, 20, 31). And God expected the message of the Bible to be translated into the languages of all nations (Mt. 28:19; Acts 1:8).
LikeLike
October 21, 2019 at 3:41 pm
Pingback: Can we trust the Bible? Is it reliable? | The Culture Alternative
Pingback: mid-week apologetics booster (3-23-2023) – 1 Peter 4:12-16